The Sun is a massive source of heat/energy source at the centre of our solar system and the reason we exist.
True but not really relevant.

It transfers energy etc to other objects in our solar system via Sunlight and various waves.
Correct. It transmits electromagnetic energy through a vacuum. So we've established that energy can travel through a vacuum. Which means that a hot body (i.e., a body within which there's an appreciable amount of kinetic energy at the molecular level) can radiate energy into a vacuum. Without convection. So there's somewhere for the kinetic energy (heat) to go after all.

My point is there is no Ball of Ice sending off negative energy in our solar system.
No one has claimed otherwise.

Why stop at Waterloo - Because I prefer modern history its easier understood.
That is a complete non sequitur. You've simply failed - or refused - to answer the question.

We are talking about a Box measured in Kilograms yet you now want to include the moon which is about 7.35x10^22 kg.
Because the principle is exactly the same.
Both are bodies in space. Both receive energy from the sun on their bright side. Both radiate energy (lose heat) from their dark side. Into a vacuum. Without convection.
The only material difference between them is that the surface of the spaceship conducts heat quickly from its bright side to its dark side where it radiates away again. Without convection.
The moon's surface doesn't conduct efficiently so there is a gradual build-up of energy (heat) on the surface during the moon's day followed by a huge loss of energy (heat) - without convection - at night. The energy radiates away from the surface into the vacuum of space. Without convection. The temperature of the surface drops by 400 degrees Celsius as the energy radiates away (without convection).
You failed to answer the question. Again.

"Understand what"?
The questions to which you've been unable to give a straight answer, for a start. Non sequiturs about Waterloo don't count as answers. Nor do strawmen about negative energy from a Ball of Ice.

There is a massive heat source we call the sun giving objects in space heat without any convective heat loss comparable to the same object in the sunshine on Earth.
Nor is there any convective heat gain by the objects. No energy at all is transmitted through convection. Convection doesn't come into it at all. The only transmission of energy is by radiation. Without convection.
Conditions in space are not the same as conditions on Earth so it's pointless to compare them.

Of course the object will radiate heat in space but not at a rate any where near the rate of convective heat loss it would experience on Earth in an atmosphere.
Aye, we know that. But what values have you calculated for the amount of energy which the spaceship absorbs from the sun per second, the rate of transmission of that energy around the conductive surface of that spaceship and the amount of energy which is radiated from the spaceship per second? What value have you assigned to the albedo of the spaceship's surface for your calculations? What percentage of the incoming electromagnetic energy is reflected directly back into space and not absorbed? Have you taken into account the orientation of the spaceship with respect to the sun and whether or not the craft is rotating on an axis?
Or are you content to keep on making unsubstantiated assertions while refusing to consider evidence which exposes the deficiencies in your Physics By Fiat?

In my experience Apollogists generally disagree on absolutely everything including the weather in an effort to stifle open debate perhaps you could please state plainly whether you think the Apollo missions were real or faked?

As someone with 190 odd posts in 10 Years I find your multiple posts to me rather interesting._________________Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.

The Sun is a massive source of heat/energy source at the centre of our solar system and the reason we exist.
True but not really relevant.

It transfers energy etc to other objects in our solar system via Sunlight and various waves.
Correct. It transmits electromagnetic energy through a vacuum. So we've established that energy can travel through a vacuum. Which means that a hot body (i.e., a body within which there's an appreciable amount of kinetic energy at the molecular level) can radiate energy into a vacuum. Without convection. So there's somewhere for the kinetic energy (heat) to go after all.

My point is there is no Ball of Ice sending off negative energy in our solar system.
No one has claimed otherwise.

Why stop at Waterloo - Because I prefer modern history its easier understood.
That is a complete non sequitur. You've simply failed - or refused - to answer the question.

We are talking about a Box measured in Kilograms yet you now want to include the moon which is about 7.35x10^22 kg.
Because the principle is exactly the same.
Both are bodies in space. Both receive energy from the sun on their bright side. Both radiate energy (lose heat) from their dark side. Into a vacuum. Without convection.
The only material difference between them is that the surface of the spaceship conducts heat quickly from its bright side to its dark side where it radiates away again. Without convection.
The moon's surface doesn't conduct efficiently so there is a gradual build-up of energy (heat) on the surface during the moon's day followed by a huge loss of energy (heat) - without convection - at night. The energy radiates away from the surface into the vacuum of space. Without convection. The temperature of the surface drops by 400 degrees Celsius as the energy radiates away (without convection).
You failed to answer the question. Again.

"Understand what"?
The questions to which you've been unable to give a straight answer, for a start. Non sequiturs about Waterloo don't count as answers. Nor do strawmen about negative energy from a Ball of Ice.

There is a massive heat source we call the sun giving objects in space heat without any convective heat loss comparable to the same object in the sunshine on Earth.
Nor is there any convective heat gain by the objects. No energy at all is transmitted through convection. Convection doesn't come into it at all. The only transmission of energy is by radiation. Without convection.
Conditions in space are not the same as conditions on Earth so it's pointless to compare them.

Of course the object will radiate heat in space but not at a rate any where near the rate of convective heat loss it would experience on Earth in an atmosphere.
Aye, we know that. But what values have you calculated for the amount of energy which the spaceship absorbs from the sun per second, the rate of transmission of that energy around the conductive surface of that spaceship and the amount of energy which is radiated from the spaceship per second? What value have you assigned to the albedo of the spaceship's surface for your calculations? What percentage of the incoming electromagnetic energy is reflected directly back into space and not absorbed? Have you taken into account the orientation of the spaceship with respect to the sun and whether or not the craft is rotating on an axis?
Or are you content to keep on making unsubstantiated assertions while refusing to consider evidence which exposes the deficiencies in your Physics By Fiat?

In my experience Apollogists generally disagree on absolutely everything including the weather in an effort to stifle open debate perhaps you could please state plainly whether you think the Apollo missions were real or faked?

As someone with 190 odd posts in 10 Years I find your multiple posts to me rather interesting.

Rather, his restreint and lack of ridicule, thus far, has been commendable. Resorting to innuendo only confirms a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the physics that you are contesting. Better to stop before your hole gets any deeper._________________The grand design, reflected in the face of Chaos.

Rather, his restraint and lack of ridicule, thus far, has been commendable. Resorting to innuendo only confirms a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the physics that you are contesting. Better to stop before your hole gets any deeper.

Firstly, thank you Peter. I warmly appreciate that.

je-demande wrote:

In my experience Apollogists generally disagree on absolutely everything including the weather in an effort to stifle open debate perhaps you could please state plainly whether you think the Apollo missions were real or faked?

I used to think that there was a reasonably convincing case for arguing that they were faked.
I did a lot of study, research and investigation into the issues that I thought were problematic (including the temperature issues).
I've finally come round to thinking that the missions were most probably real.

je-demande wrote:

As someone with 190 odd posts in 10 Years I find your multiple posts to me rather interesting.

I'm glad you find them interesting.

But seriously, it's nothing personal against you. I don't know you or anything about you.
You posed a question which I've taken at face value and I offered answers for you to consider. Out of courtesy, I engaged with you a few more times in case I'd not expressed myself clearly enough. However I'm now at the stage where I'll just leave it as it is because I've concluded that you're not actually interested in learning anything that would make you revise your initial position.

So be it. My life will go on.

As you noted, I've been registered on this site since 2007 and I'm not a prolific poster. On the other hand, I've read thousands of posts, followed countless links and been directed to innumerable other sources of intelligent information. I've learned a hell of a lot from carefully reading the thoughtful, well-considered posts from the best contributors to this forum - people who are smarter than me, know more than I do and get me contemplating things that I'd never have worked out for myself. By the time I've properly digested even a little of that, a given thread has invariably moved on.

On the rare occasions that I feel I'm sufficiently on top of the discussion at hand and I've got something worthwhile to say, I'll happily make a post. More often somebody else has already made the point that I might otherwise have made or the question that was in my mind has been answered. In any case, I have no desire to clutter up the forum with useless noise just for the sake of bumping up my post count. That's not the way I roll, either on the internet or in real life.

I much prefer to listen attentively to intelligent people talking knowledgeably about interesting subjects rather than hear my own voice. One learns much more by listening than by talking and I come to this site primarily to learn and to be stimulated but if I can sometimes give a little in return, great. If someone asks something that I think I can help them with, I'm in. However, the great thing about this site is that forum members are encouraged to use their brains more than their keyboards. There are a few great posters who can use both equally well and I'm very grateful to them for their contributions. They're the ones who've consistently made breakfornews my favourite website over the last ten years and long may it remain so.

Okay, I trust I've answered your questions so I'll vacate the platform now. My next scheduled post isn't due until about the end of July. _________________My real name is Gerry.

In my experience Apollogists generally disagree on absolutely everything including the weather in an effort to stifle open debate perhaps you could please state plainly whether you think the Apollo missions were real or faked?

Peter wrote:

Rather, his restreint and lack of ridicule, thus far, has been commendable. Resorting to innuendo only confirms a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of the physics that you are contesting. Better to stop before your hole gets any deeper.

ManAtTheWindow wrote:

I used to think that there was a reasonably convincing case for arguing that they were faked.
I did a lot of study, research and investigation into the issues that I thought were problematic (including the temperature issues).
I've finally come round to thinking that the missions were most probably real.

It seems obvious now but if I had of known you were an "Apollogist" I would have talored my Posts slightly differently.

The old consensus line most or smart people say we landed on the moon is also "People who conform and enjoy their place in society and don't want stigma" say we landed on the moon, in the same way Global Warming-ists force their opinions.

The majority of Scientists blah blah!! when it seems obvious to me that Apollo is the modern day Kings new Clothes.

I have only tried setting Apollo in a more realistic context - like most Academic Study - trying to find paralells with more tangible themes mainly because "Astral" Physics is largely theoritical especially if one considers man may never have been in "Deep Space"

I would even stick my neck out and say that while noting the close calls Armstrong and Grissum had in training together with our knowledge of 1969's battery technology I find it highly unlikely that NASA would have been able to...

Put a manned rocket into orbit
Decouple the Lander from the mother ship
Land men in the Sahara desert.
Sustain these men in their tin can for 3 days in full sun.
Take off again into orbit
dock with the mother ship going a few thousand miles an hour
then land in the Indian Ocean..
Never mind all that half million miles malarky._________________Vaut mieux prévenir que guérir.

Even NASA says it can't go to the moon anymore. Really; do buy this? How stupid do they think we are? Oh and all that raw video footage y'all shot, got thrown out in the dusty old box you stored it in? Really? Such historic moments thrown into the dustbin of history.

“International collaboration I believe is essential for space exploration it provides robustness to the technology of exploration,” he said. “Each country has a different means of approaching the same problem and when one countries technology fails you can rely on the other countries technology to get you through that particular issue.”

Read what dude says; 'The problem is we don't have the technology to do that anymore.' Huh? What does that mean exactly?_________________"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha

Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked?
hedgeless_horseman's picture
by hedgeless_horseman
Jul 21, 2017 11:23 AM
767
Mother should I trust the government?
-Pink Floyd, Mother

Elon Musk just announced that SpaceX abandons propulsive landing plans for Red Dragon mission to Mars.

In my opinion, we should not be surprised.

NASA supposedly used propulsive landing for the Apollo missions to the moon...in 1969.

I ask you to please click the following hyperlinks to read three articles, carefully, watch one 3-1/3 minute video, closely, and then draw your own conclusions about the Apollo Moon landings that we are told occured nearly 50 years ago.
First, an article from RT, today:

SpaceX abandons propulsive landing plans for Red Dragon mission to Mars
“The reason we decided not to pursue that heavily is that it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport,” Musk said. “That’s why we are not pursuing it. It could be something that we bring back later, but it doesn’t seem like the right way to apply resources right now.”
Musk added that he did not think that propulsive landing was the best approach.
https://www.rt.com/usa/397023-musk-dragon-mars-propulsive/

Posted: Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:55 pm Post subject: 50 years last Month since first steps on the lunar Surface

'IT WASN'T POSSIBLE' Nasa challenged to PROVE it landed astronauts on the moon NASA has been urged to provide conclusive proof once and for all that the moon landings were real and not faked.

The 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first steps on the lunar surface took place last month, but many conspiracy theorists across the globe remain convinced it was the biggest cover up of all time.

Moon hoax conspiracy theorists say a desperate President John F Kennedy, who wanted to beat the Russians in the space race to the moon, ordered the production of a series of films in top-secret studios to make it look like Nasa astronauts made it to the lunar surface.

At the heart of the theory are claims that the radioactive Van Allen belt around Earth would have been lethal to fly through.

Highly recommend a search for Jay Weidner and his analysis of Stanley Kubrick's "Shinning" movie as code for his role in faking moon landing footage as a parallel with his shooting of A Space Odyssey 2001.

That is about the only thing that would make sense given the bizarre "creative" nature of the film:)

Eyes Wide Shut is also relevant to the occult nature of the folks at Never A Straight Answer (NASA)._________________Relax, we're so much more than we beLIEve.

Reflect within, into the ever present mirror of linguistics and grow wise not old.

The opposite of death is a beginning-birth-NOT life! Life is everlasting; eternal cycles within cycles.

At the heart of the theory are claims that the radioactive Van Allen belt around Earth would have been lethal to fly through.

Theres no data to back up any claim the the van Allen belt was lethal. It did pose a risk, but not enough to instantly die from it. It increased a persons risk of developing cancer by around 1%. No greater than the risk some workers have faced in the nuclear industry.